 |
| Nobody wants this much paperwork |
No opinions the week of Thanksgiving (not that I would've written 'em up if there were).
Two opinions on December 5.
The first case is a follow-up to the first-ever (to my knowledge) abusive-litigation order SCOV has considered (read the prequel in this post). The other is a neighbors-versus-solar-facility fight that turns on how much deference the Public Utility Commission (PUC) owes towns, agencies, and its own rules. Let's get to it.
Mr. Dasler was the recipient of an abusive‑litigation order in 2024. The family division found that years of relitigation, repetitive motions, wild and unsubstantiated accusations, and multi‑forum filings added up to "abusive litigation" and said "no mas!" That was affirmed on appeal. Then the trial court awarded Mr. Desler's ex about $6K in fees and costs tied to the abusive‑litigation motion and the last round of filings.
Mr. Dasler did not like that. And that's how we end up at SCOV.
He first argues the trial court had to treat this like "suit money" in a divorce or like a Rule 11 sanction, meaning detailed findings on his finances and an ability‑to‑pay analysis. He throws in retroactivity, access‑to‑justice, and constitutional‑fairness arguments for good measure.
SCOV is unconvinced. It holds that fee awards under the abusive-litigation statutes turn on reasonableness and not the "needs‑based" focus that governs suit money at the time of divorce. The family court had looked at the billing, found the time and rates reasonable, considered Mr. Dasler's financial affidavit, declined any discount, and wasn’t required to make granular findings about his financial situation before making its award.
SCOV also rejects the attempt to drag in Rule 11's deterrence‑based "no more than necessary" language. The abusive‑litigation statute is intentionally more focused on consequences. Retroactivity here is a non‑starter because SCOV held in the earlier appeal that the statute was applied only to post‑enactment conduct. No collateral attack allowed in this fee appeal. The access‑to‑justice argument likewise meets the proverbial snowball's end. There is no access-to-justice interest in using the courts to harass a former partner, and indigence does not create an exemption from financial consequences when the Legislature has expressly authorized fee shifting to protect victims of litigation abuse. SCOV affirms the fee award. Will there be a round three? Only time will tell. Knapp v. Dasler, 2025 VT 66.
Turning to the sun and its relation to your light bill . . . or something like that. We have an appeal from the PUC's issuance of a certificate of public good (CPG). Neighbors argue the PUC botched the CPG in three ways: (1) failing to ensure orderly development under subsection (b)(1) of this statute; (2) not considering the soil erosion and water impacts under subsection (b)(5) and subsection (a)(4) of this statute; and not factoring in preferred‑site status under the PUC's own rules. Normally, I wouldn't bother with the subsections but those are some needle-in-a-haystack propositions.
Anyway, the project is sited on hilly ground, with some of the infrastructure on over 25% slope. It's also in a surface‑water protection area. Initially, the Town issued a joint "preferred site" letter with the regional commission but then conditioned continued support on no panels on more-than 25% slopes and the final site plan.
Though a hearing officer initially recommended rejecting the application for the CPG due to conflicting evidence about whether panels would actually be on the 25%+ slope, the PUC rejected that recommendation and issued the CPG.
Neighbors appeal.
On orderly development, "due consideration" controls. While town and regional plans guide, they do not control), even when a land‑conservation measure, like, say a 25%+ slope bar is right there. Here, the regional plan had an affirmative energy‑compliance determination so it gets "substantial" deference. The town plan did not and so gets "due consideration." Below, the PUC acknowledged non‑compliance with the town's no-more-than-25%-slope language but found the project's impacts were localized and adequately managed. SCOV concludes that meets the due-consideration benchmark.
On erosion and water, we could get complicated but that's never productive. Basically, the ANR's (Agency of Natural Resources) low-risk determination carries the day. Neighbors argue that the methodology on calculating "impervious surfaces" is flawed but they don't have expert testimony to support the challenge. Deference to agency interpretation, yadda, yadda, you know the story.
On the preferred‑site status, it boils down to who gets to say when the town’s conditions have been met and how picky the PUC must be about survey methodology. The letter from the town and the regional commission turns out to be enough to get to preferred-site status. SCOV concludes that the PUC was justified in making the preferred-site determination and that challenge goes nowhere.
That's that. The CPG stands. In re Randolph Davis Solar LLC, 2025 VT 63
Comments
Post a Comment